JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition challenging the order of dismissal passed by the respondent No. 2 Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan by order dated 13th July, 1964 and upheld in appeal by respondent No. 1 dated 25th June, 1966, and also confirmed in review by the Governor by his order dated 25th March, 1969. When this petition had come up earlier for hearing before this Court the same was dismissed on a preliminary objection by the State that the petition has been filed after a great delay. The petitioner aggrieved filed a Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1974 in the Supreme Court which by its order dated 15th September, 1975 took the view that this Court was in error in having upheld the preliminary objection on the ground of delay and remanded the case for disposal in accordance with law. This is how the matter has come up for hearing today. 2. Some structures were passed against the petitioner in Case No. FIR No. 25 of 19th August, 1961 under section 396/362/376 Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara on 19th August, 1962. The background of the structures was that the petitioner was posted as Station House Officer of Police Station, Badnore. It had been alleged that one Balu Singh went to Police Station, Badnore and reported verbally to the Police Officer about one Geeta having been kidnapped about a year back and detained by the Kalbalias. The petitioner on this is said to have sent two constables F.C. Bhure Khan and F.C. Narain Singh to bring the Kalbalias along with the girl, but while deputing the constables with Balu Singh, the petitioner instead of entering true facts in the Daily Diary is said to have entered a false report No. 15 deputing the constables to Chachela ka Bara for execution of warrant against one Puran Singh. It was also the case that a false report was entered on 21st July, 1961 that the kalbelias and the girl were found in suspicious circumstances and they were arrested under section 55/109 Criminal Procedure Code. It was also said that Geeta revealed that she was kidnapped and raped and thus though a cognizable case was made cut, the petitioner instead of registering case sent Mst. Geeta along with Kalbelias to the S.D.M. Court, Gulabpura under section 109 Criminal Procedure Code. There Mst. It was also said that Geeta revealed that she was kidnapped and raped and thus though a cognizable case was made cut, the petitioner instead of registering case sent Mst. Geeta along with Kalbelias to the S.D.M. Court, Gulabpura under section 109 Criminal Procedure Code. There Mst. Geeta is said to have revealed the story and the S.D.M. thereupon registered a case and ultimately the Kalbelias were convicted under section 366, 376, 392 Indian Penal Code. While giving the judgement dated 9.8.62 the Sessions Judge passed structures against the conduct of the petitioner and sent a copy of the same to the Inspector General of Police by his letter of 13th August, 1962. The petitioner was given a charge sheet dated 25th September, 1962, intimating him that it was proposed to hold a departmental inquiry against him under the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be called 'the Rule'). 3. The charges in brief alleged that he had got wrong entries made on 21st July, 1961 about the dispatch of constables and further that when Mst. Geeta came back again a wrong report was made in the Diary. Similarly when Mst. Geeta told her story about her kidnapping, he refused to register a case and that he showed the arrest of Mst. Geeta under section 55 and section 109 Criminal Procedure Code when he knew it to be wrong and baseless. Also that in spite of Mst. Geeta having told him of her story, he kept her in Police Station for 3 days unauthorisedly and sixthly, by proceeding against Kalbelias under section 55 and 109 Criminal Procedure Code he knew that they will be released on bail and would abscond and then avoid punishment for serious charges made against them. It was, therefore, alleged that he had failed in his duty and therefore this comes within misconduct under section 7 of the Police Act read with rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and that amounts to negligence of duty and therefore he was not fit to be retained in police. 4. Departmental inquiry was held by the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara, who by his report of dated 29.6.63 found all the charges, proved excepting charge No. 5 which was partially proved and recommended the dismissal of the petitioner. 4. Departmental inquiry was held by the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara, who by his report of dated 29.6.63 found all the charges, proved excepting charge No. 5 which was partially proved and recommended the dismissal of the petitioner. Show cause notice was served on the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 Inspector General of Police by memo dated 4th February, 1964, which was replied to by the petitioner on 26th March, 1964. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 found the charges proved against the petitioner and not finding that he deserved any lesser punishment dismissed him from service. The petitioner filed an appeal but the same was rejected by the State Government by its order dated 25th of June, 1966. The petitioner thereafter filed a review petition dated 1st June, 1968 before the Governor but the same was rejected by him by order dated 27th March, 1969. It is thereafter the petitioner filed a writ petition on 22nd July, 1969. 5. The first contention by Mr. Sualal, who argued the case in person was that the Inquiry Officer was not appointed according to the rules and therefore all the proceedings are vitiated. It is common case that the Inspector General of Police is the Appointing Authority of the petitioner. Rule 16(2) of the Rules provides that the Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held. Explanation to sub rule (2) says that the Disciplinary Authority shall include the authority competent under these rules to impose upon the Government servants any of the penalties, specified in clauses (i) to sub-rule (3) of rule 14 (minor penalties like censure etc.). In Schedule II of the Rules, Note 3 under the headings of Police Department lays down that "the powers regarding imposition of the penalties of 'Censure' and withholding of increments in regard to the holders of such posts in respect of which the Inspector General of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police are the appointing authorities will vest with the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Superintendent of Police and Commandants, Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, respectively." It is apparent that by virtue of the explanation and note the Superintendent of Police is empowered to issue a charge sheet, under rule 16(2) for imposing major penalty. This was so held in civil Misc. This was so held in civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 170/65 decided on 29th of January, 1968. The petitioner, however, sought to urge that this note does not confer on the Superintendent of Police to hold an enquiry unless he has been specifically appointed as Enquiry Officer by the Disciplinary Authority, under Rule 16(4) of the Rules. That no doubt is true in terms of the judgement earlier mentioned. In the present case, we find that after the District and Sessions Judge had forwarded on 13th of August, 1962 a copy of the judgement to the Inspector General of Police the latter wrote to the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 31st August, 1962 against him to take suitable section against the petitioner. The Deputy Inspector General of Police in his turn by his letter of 7th September, 1962 to the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara requested him to take departmental action against the petitioner. The argument of the petitioner is that this appointment as an Enquiry Officer of the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara by the Deputy Inspector General of Police does not comply with the rule because the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner is the Inspector General of Police. Even so rule 16(4) was complied when on 14th October, 1962 the Inspector General of Police sent radiogram to the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara, directing him that the departmental enquiry against the defaulter (petitioner) must be completed within a period of 30 days and an inquiry report must be submitted to the Police Headquarters before the final orders are passed. Even if the argument of the petitioner is accepted that the appointment of the Superintendent of Police was not sufficient, no fault can be found after 14th October, 1962 when the Superintendent of Police was appointed as an Enquiry Officer by the appointing authority, the Inspector General of Police. This plea of the petitioner has therefore, no merit. 6. The second contention of the petitioner was that ex-parte proceedings have been taken against him and therefore the inquiry was vitiated. Now it appears that the petitioner was informed on 22nd December, 1962 to present himself for inquiry on 26th December, 1962. On the request of or the petitioner however, the enquiry was adjourned on 26th of December, 1962. 6. The second contention of the petitioner was that ex-parte proceedings have been taken against him and therefore the inquiry was vitiated. Now it appears that the petitioner was informed on 22nd December, 1962 to present himself for inquiry on 26th December, 1962. On the request of or the petitioner however, the enquiry was adjourned on 26th of December, 1962. Again the petitioner had an adjournment on the ground that he was ill and the inquiry had to be postponed to 4th, 5th and 6th January, 1963. But as the petitioner did not attend, it was again adjourned to 11th, 12th and 13th January for recording of the evidence. The petitioner again did not appear and sought adjournment and the same was given and dates of 18th and 19th January, 1963 were fixed. The Inquiry Officer then sought instructions from the Deputy Inspector General of Police as what to do as the petitioner was persistently avoiding to appear before him, he was told that if he does not appear the inquiry may be held ex-parte, so the Enquiry Officer sent a notice on 4th February, 1963 asking him to appear on 7th and 8th. The petitioner, however, again wrote on 4th of February, 1963 expressing his inability to attend and also pointed out that he had to appear in a court of First Class Magistrate, Jahazur in connection with his evidence. He was informed by the Inquiry Officer by his letter of 6th February, 1963 that no more adjournment will be given and the enquiry will proceed ex parte on 7th and 8th February if the petitioner did not appear.Some witnesses were examined on 7th and 8th February, 1963 and the petitioner did not appear. However, full evidence was not recorded and some of them were examined on 13th of March and some were even recorded on 7th of May, 1963. The petitioner, however, at no time made any effort to participate in the proceedings. His only explanation is that he had been deputed to be associated in some other investigation by the Superintendent of Police and therefore he could not do so. But I find no material on record that the petitioner had expressed, any desire to participate in the proceedings and had been prevented from doing so. His only explanation is that he had been deputed to be associated in some other investigation by the Superintendent of Police and therefore he could not do so. But I find no material on record that the petitioner had expressed, any desire to participate in the proceedings and had been prevented from doing so. As a matter of fact, it seems that the petitioner's main plank had always been that the Inquiry should not proceed because he had moved the High Court for expunging, he remarks made by the Session Judge. Those remarks were expunged on 15th February, 1963. But I cannot persuade myself to accept the argument that the pendency of that matter in the High Court gave any justification to the petitioner not to participate in the enquiry. As a matter of fact, though the matter was so urgent that a pre-emptory date was fixed by the Inspector General of Police to finish the inquiry within one month, yet the Enquiry Officer did try to accommodate the petitioner to the maximum. I cannot, therefore, uphold this objection by the petitioner. 7. Connected with this contention is the grievance of the petitioner that he was not given the documents which he had sought for. It appears that the petitioner had asked for the supply of certain copies of documents, by his application dated 26th October, 1962. It is admitted by the petitioner that he was given inspection of the certain documents though according to him he could not take full copies of the same. The documents mentioned relate to statements of PW's recorded in the committing Magistrate and the Sessions Judge's Court proceedings and also of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code. He has mentioned in his application that he had copied a few of the papers though some of them could not be done and a few copies were more necessary which he had applied. This he apparently did on 9th November, 1962 but this was for the purpose of filing a revision against the decision of the Session Judge containing structures against him. He had also in his reply to the charge sheet asked for supply of certain copies and also indicated which witnesses he would be producing. This he apparently did on 9th November, 1962 but this was for the purpose of filing a revision against the decision of the Session Judge containing structures against him. He had also in his reply to the charge sheet asked for supply of certain copies and also indicated which witnesses he would be producing. The respondent No. 2, however, did not find any validity in the objection that the petitioner had not been supplied with the copies of documents asked for. It is possible that the petitioner may not have obtained the complete documents which he was seeking. The difficulty, however, in the way of giving relief to the petitioner on this ground arises from the fact that he did not choose to participate in the inquiry. It was not his case that he was not able to participate and give his defence in the absence of the relevant documents. The plea put forth by him through out has been that because the matter was pending in the High Court for expunction of the remarks, enquiry should not go on, Had the petitioner participated in the proceedings and made a grievance during the departmental inquiry that he was not in a position to confront the witnesses in the absence of relevant documents, which were mainly the documents which the petitioner was seeking and was handicapped in his defence, he may well have had a legitimate grievance. But when the petitioner did not choose to participate in the proceedings, I do not see how he can make a grievance of not having got certain documents though asked for. I also do not find that subsequent to the applicants given in November, 1962 the petitioner asked for the supply of these documents even though the inquiry went on till May, 1963. There is nothing on record to show that there was any refusal to supply these documents. It appears to me, that this grievance of the petitioner has not even the merit of a technical objection much less the objection based on the principles of natural justice. The whole purpose to obtain copies of documents is to participate effectively in the proceedings so that he can cross examine the witnesses. He not having participated in the enquiry, absence of any such documents can not lead to the conclusion that enquiry is bad because of violation of the principles of natural justice. The whole purpose to obtain copies of documents is to participate effectively in the proceedings so that he can cross examine the witnesses. He not having participated in the enquiry, absence of any such documents can not lead to the conclusion that enquiry is bad because of violation of the principles of natural justice. It may also be noted that the petitioner was informed by the Superintendent of Police by his letter of 8th May, 1963 that the prosecution evidence has been concluded and that he was given 10 days time to submit a list of defence witnesses and the documents which he may want to produce in the inquiry. The petitioner sent a reply on 18th May, 1963 and again made a grievance that the inquiry should not have proceeded in his absence till the decision or the revision petition for expunging the structures filed in the High Court was decided and also pointing out that High Court had accepted his revision and expunged the structures, and the matter be decided in the light of its perusal. The only reference in this letter to reply to charge sheet dated 11th of October, 1962 submitted by him wherein he had mentioned certain documents therein and stated that if the documents had been examined the question of inquiry or suspension would not have arisen and requested the Inspector General of Police to decide the case on merits. It is worthy to note that the petitioner even at this stage did not take up the plea and make any grievance that he wanted certain documents so that he could give his defence properly, nor did he insist that certain witnesses which were examined to his absence be recalled and the documents supplied to him so that he may confront him with it. The petitioner's conduct was consistently not to participate in the proceedings and to take his stand that he had gone in revision to the High Court against the structure and that was enough. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the grievance that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity by not giving him the necessary documents. 8. The next contention was that no finding has been given on each charge. This is contrary to the record. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the grievance that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity by not giving him the necessary documents. 8. The next contention was that no finding has been given on each charge. This is contrary to the record. A reference to the inquiry report shows that each charge has been discussed and findings given under each charge. As a matter of fact the Inquiry Officer has been so meticulous that he has mentioned that all the six charges have been proved except the charge No. 5 which has been partly proved. The Inspector General of Police has also discussed the various contentions and has also agreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer. I do not see how it can be said that each charge has not been discussed and finding given. The inquiry report runs into about 20 pages and even the Inspector General of Police's order is a fairly lengthy one. This plea fails. 9. The next grievance was that no inquiry should have held because a revision had been filed in this Court for expunging the remarks made by the Sessions Judge. No statutory provision has been pointed out which debars the department from holding an inquiry. Moreover the inquiry was being held against the petitioner in having acted in such manner are did not befit a police officer and presence or expunging of the structures by this Court had no relevancy excepting to the extent that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner or information having been come from the judgement of the Sessions Judge. There being to statutory bar, no argument can be made as to why the inquiry should not have been held even before the decision in the revision filed in this Court by the petitioner. 10. The next grievance is that the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara i.e. the Inquiry Officer, was biased against him. The petitioner sought to show bias on the ground that some time in 1954 when inquiry officer was posted as Superintendent of Police, Jaipur, he made an inquiry against him and a dismissal order was passed against him but which was later on set aside by the Deputy Inspector General of Police in appeal. The petitioner sought to show bias on the ground that some time in 1954 when inquiry officer was posted as Superintendent of Police, Jaipur, he made an inquiry against him and a dismissal order was passed against him but which was later on set aside by the Deputy Inspector General of Police in appeal. The petitioner, however, concedes that the inquiry then held was by the Additional Superintendent of Police and not by the Superintendent of Police, the present inquiry officer. It is stretching credibility to urge the bias of the inquiry officer by the above said example, when the present inquiry officer had nothing to do with that inquiry. The other example of bias was said to be that during the pendency of the inquiry the petitioner has been asked to join some other investigation and in spite of that the Superintendent of Police charged that the petitioner was absent from the police lines. Even if it be accepted that it was a wrong charge, it is too far a jump to say that the inquiry officer was prejudiced against the petitioner. It is most relevant to note that though the inquiry officer was appointed in September, 1962 and had sent a charge sheet to the petitioner, the later had not made any grievance to the Inspector General of Police or the Deputy General of Police against the appointment of the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara as an inquiry officer on the plea that he was biased against him. The inquiry was allowed to be conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara and at earlier stages the petitioner even corresponded with him and asked for documents and adjournments. At no stage did he suggest that the inquiry officer was prejudiced and that he did not expect a fair inquiry. Of course the petitioner did mention in his reply to the show cause notice that the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara conducted his inquiry while he was acting as the District Superintendent of Police, Jaipur and the petitioner had been exonerated. This of course is incorrect as pointed out above because the inquiry was held by the Additional Superintendent of Police and it was he who had recommended his dismissal. The Superintendent of Police was not the inquiry officer and therefore this suggestion of bias obviously did not prevail with the Inspector General of Police as it was incorrect on facts. 11. The Superintendent of Police was not the inquiry officer and therefore this suggestion of bias obviously did not prevail with the Inspector General of Police as it was incorrect on facts. 11. The next contention by the petitioner is that there was no basis for holding any inquiry against the petitioner. He seeks to make a grievance against the action taken by the Magistrate, in proceedings under section 55/109 Criminal Procedure Code and the way the Magistrate acted. I do not see any relevancy of this argument. Whether the Magistrate acted properly or not is not the subject matter before. The charge against the petitioner is that though in the police report he had written that the constables had been sent in connection with a warrant to be executed against Puran Singh, in fact the constables had been sent on the report of Balu Singh to recover Mst. Geeta from Kalbelias. The further charge was that even though the constables brought the Kalbelias with Mst. Geeta and Mst. Geeta told the petitioner that she had been raped and kidnapped, he did not register a case which was a cognizable one. These matters are totally distinct and concern the conduct of the petitioner, the action of the Magistrate could not possibly from the subject matter of charge before the departmental authorities. The petitioner would have it that he correctly forwarded the report under section 55/109 Criminal Procedure Code to the Magistrate, but the later did not act properly. I do no see any relevancy of this to the departmental inquiry against the petitioner. The authorities under the Rules have come to a concurrent finding that the version given by Mst. Geeta is believable as against one given by the petitioner. Sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is not proper for me to inquire into the merits of this finding of fact. This argument is misconceived. 12. I do not find any merit in the writ petition which is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. *******